Need grants? Collaborate and conquer!

Is your charity solving problems or just spending money? Many funders are asking that question, and sometimes just that bluntly.

The question of whether there are too many ineffective nonprofits competing for too few non-government dollars has been an ongoing discussion for quite some time. The advent of the 1023EZ is onceagain creating interest not just in answering that question, but solving the problem.

There are two polarizing reasons why nonprofit funding woes continue to proliferate. One,  nonprofit founders feel that they are serving a need not otherwise addressed in their local area, and two, funders have hit the wall in terms of how many small organizations they can fund while still achieving their own missions.

One bone, many dogs

Obviously, some nonprofits are all chasing the same dollars for the same causes.

One of the first things I do when a prospective nonprofit founder contacts me for help starting a new venture is to see how many other groups are tackling the same problem in a relatively tight (say within a fifty mile radius) geographic area.  I also check to see how many national groups have chapters or members in that area.

You know what?  Grantors do exactly the same thing and woe be onto you if you are just one face in a crowd.  

One very popular type of charitable focus, and a crowded one,  is on alleviating hunger. Quite frankly, one or two national groups pretty much have that arena sewed up tight, speaking strictly from a funding standpoint. You can become one of their network members, but striking out totally on your own may not result in success.

Sure, your new food pantry might be the only one in its area, but where is the money going to come from to sustain it? Taking in a few thousand dollars a year might have a positive local outcome, but is it sustainably resulting in fewer hungry people?

Generally, when nonprofits think about mergers they think of other similar agencies. For instance a soup kitchen might collaborate with a larger food pantry or food bank.

That could be the wrong approach.

A new look at an old problem

What about partnering with organizations that remove the root cause of hunger, which is generally considered to be poverty?

Consider forming a sort of local or regional alliance that addresses all the causative factors that result in hunger.

A local food bank could seek out another local group that provides help in getting GED's. Those two could enlist the aid of a group that provides specific technical training or scholarships. Those three could work with a local economic development group seeking to bring in more jobs to the area. Those four could work with a group providing childcare for working parents.

Each of those groups has their own particular expertise, but together, they could actually offer grantors the chance to end the need for supplemental feeding programs.

That's the kind of impact that impresses grantors.

By forming a regional or even local community improvement collaboration, each agency could pool their manpower, marketing and yes, their dollars to create complete outcomes.

Make no mistake, this type of organization is no picnic to form, and even less easy to manage. This definitely a time when you want expert legal and financial advice.

Too many egos, too many pet projects and too little money dooms more than a few collaborations. If one organization gets money from a major donor restricted to say, just purchasing food, and another gets nothing for  school supplies, all hell breaks loose.

I have intimate knowledge of how that works, having written a successful five-year grant for several million dollars, only to have the partners start fighting over the funds when they were awarded. Within less than a year, the cornerstone charity backed out, leaving four smaller agencies incapable of meeting the renewal terms of the grant in the second year. In the end, no one got the rest of the money, and no one benefited.

This "collaboration" was strictly a gentleman's agreement, and when issues arose there was no contract or formal agreement to prevent the largest participant nonprofit from bolting.

Funders currently hold all the aces

If nonprofits don't find better ways to fix problems, funders will do it for them. The reason the big-money, high-profile charities get all the money is because they are perceived as being more effective.

As I look for funding for smaller organizations, I'm seeing more and more foundations closing their public application processes. Others are starting to set minimum revenue qualifiers in the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars for consideration of proposals.

Still, some funders do recognize that size isn't necessarily an indicator of effectiveness, and they are looking for innovative proposals.

A relatively small collaborative venture might well be more effective than a huge national organization that is strangled by its own size. Many large nonprofits have been plagued by scandal that resulted primarily because the national organization was far too insulated from accountability by its sheer size.

Nevertheless,  faced with the inevitable reality that there just isn't enough money to go around, funders are attacking the problem by prioritizing in favor of larger or at least potentially more effective organizations.

Community collaborations could be the answer to being shut out all together. 

Happy New (giving) Year!

If you waited too long to maximize the holiday giving season, your appeal just isn't  generating enough funding, or grants are a significant part of your revenue planning, it's time to start your planning for next year.

If you're reading this you might be saying "Aaagh!!  I'm not up for another big campaign right now!"

You and your staff may still be in the middle of all the seasonal charity events, Twitter and Facebook campaigns, and endless envelope stuffing. Sleep might be the only thing on your wish list.

That's known as the post-Christmas burn-out effect. Since the holiday season is often the highest point in most organization's revenue cycle, it's natural to go all out at the end of the year.

That doesn't really matter to grantors. Grants  are awarded at set intervals, and they can take a very long time to produce funds.

A webpage on the site of the  W.M. Keck Foundation perfectly illustrates why you need to be transitioning into next year's grant planning NOW.

Notice that next December's awards are in the planning stages right now. Applications to be awarded June 2016 open up in July 2015. In other words, the grantor is planning a full year ahead. That means you should be too.

To compete effectively for grants you need to have a forward-looking plan, meaning that you should be defining your needs well in advance of needing the funds.

You can't wait until two weeks before an application is due to start planning for it. A perfect example of that can be found on a National Institutes of Health (NIH) webpage: 

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/timelinerev.aspx

If you clicked on the link, you might notice that the suggested lead time to preparing to submit the application for funding is two months, and the award review could take "…days, weeks, or months."

That assumes that you have all your data ducks in a row. Your budget is complete, your procedures are in order, and your actual or projected results are verified, or will be by the time you actually begin the application.

Only then should you start researching possible donor matches.

If you don't have good data at your fingertips, now would definitely be the time to compile and organize it.

The R.E.A.L. Formula for attracting grantors

There are approximately 1.5 million nonprofits vying for funding from approximate 100,000 foundations every year.  Standing out in that crowd requires a strong survival strategy.

There are a few core criteria that every funding source adheres to when sifting through grant applications. Those criteria can be summed up in the R.E.A.L. formula, as follows:

• Relevancy.  Does your organization's application match up well with the donor's mission, vision and geographic limitations?
• Efficacy – If the funder gives you money, will their mission get the most bang for the buck from your organization, or will it just enable you to keep the lights on a little longer?  Various sources have reported that between 30 and 60 thousand nonprofits disappear from the IRS database each year, prompting grantors to confine their support to those organizations that can deliver benefits well into the future.
• Accountability – Does your organization have a strong track record of transparency relative to your previous operations, outcomes  and funding partnerships? Can you provide concrete examples to prove your successes and verify your financial data?
• Legitimacy – are you a legally recognized nonprofit with good references and strong outcomes?

Increasingly, as detailed in an article by Rick Cohen in the Nonprofit Quarterly, foundations are simply refusing to accept unsolicited applications. While some of that reluctance is due to recent economic factors, it is also due to simply receiving too many applications from organizations that obviously can't accomplish their mission.

Other foundations are adding restrictions to application requirements, such as not funding startups, or those whose current revenues are under a preset amount. Most have always required that you provide copies of the long form 990, indicating that your revenues are above six figures.

All prospective grantors use some sort of rubric, either written or implied, to separate the wheat from the chaff. Failing to deliver on funder expectations in any of the above areas can and probably will kill your application.

Some  shortcomings I see often are a lack of data and an unprofessional public persona.

For instance, let's look at legitimacy. The first thing I do when approached by a new nonprofit client seeking grants is to look for them online. I'm looking for a website that actually tells me something about the organization and its key personnel and programs. I want to see some sort of evidence of positive outcomes. There should be a link to the financials and  a copy of their determination letter, or at least the ability to request them.

I am also going to check all the databases for verification of their nonprofit status, including the IRS website, if necessary. While I also check out social media, the most important thing for me is to see if they present well on first impression, since I know that any funding source will be doing the same.

Grantors that ask for a website URL are going to click on the link. Even if they don't ask, they may well include your online presence as a scoring metric.

Master the R.E.A.L. formula and your funding success rate is going to go up dramatically.

Don't know if you will fit the formula?  Drop me a line at rightwords@ida.net for a review.   

Growing Your Board

Every successful nonprofit can trace its success back to a founder that had the foresight to assemble an effective board of directors. Good boards are not born, they are cultivated and grown.

There are boards, and then there are BOARDS. Good boards are not like a pile of cut lumber. They are more like branches of a tree, in that they constantly nurture the mother plant, evolve to meet changing conditions, and send out seeds or runners to stay alive and viable. Once a pile of lumber is used up, it's just gone. It's static, because the pile will only produce a pre-conceived structure. A tree keeps producing living tissue for decades, even centuries.

Developing good boards takes the skill of a master arborist. You have to know how to select the right seed stock, when to prune away the dead wood, and how to nurture it so it can produce the best fruit, before your nonprofit can collect a successful crop. Here are some of the indicators that your board is growing well. 

A good board provides structure for the nonprofit.

It maintains a coherent mission-centered direction, imposes reasonable limitations on behavior and finances, and oversees and guides mission accomplishment. Board members are legally responsible for the conduct and financial integrity of the nonprofit, as well as the success of the mission.

Good boards participate financially.

Every board member should have some financial investment in the organization. That doesn't mean the board is, should, or can be the sole support of your NPO. It does mean that they should give an annual sum that shows they are personally invested in success. Grantors often ask for the amount each board member contributes annually. That amount should show real commitment relative to the size of the nonprofit and its mission. For very small or new nonprofits maybe that's a few hundred dollars a year for the whole board, while larger organizations might expect a minimum four-figure donation from each member. After all, if the board doesn't support their own organization, why should anyone else?

Good boards set goals and make decisions.

The board must have performance standards and clear goals for the organization. If the same action items are on every agenda, or there is no or little progress being made in achieving predetermined goals, the board must be willing and able to take corrective action.

 Good boards understand the requirements of fundraising.

Every board member should understand how much needs to be raised, why it needs to be raised, and have a basic understanding of the process involved in soliciting funds.

Good boards get involved in fundraising.

There are many ways for the board to participate in fundraising. Perhaps they show up at events and pressers. Maybe they sign thank-you letters to donors. They can publicize the nonprofit through their business and personal connections. They can serve on phone lines at telethons. They may plan fundraising events. Whatever their contributions, they are active in the fundraising process at some point.

Good boards understand that there is a cost to fundraising.

"Free" money doesn't exist. Someone has to write the grants, research funding opportunities, attend events where there may be sympathetic prospective contributors, and manage the grants. Paper, printing, and distribution of fundraising documents or other marketing costs actual money. Controlling  fundraising costs can't be limited to "if it costs money we ain't doin' it". Pick a reasonable percentage of the budget to devote to fundraising, monitor its ROI effectiveness, and accept that cost without complaint.

Good boards show up.

Good boards have strict meeting attendance and conduct policies and enforce them. The board chair must take attendance and educate, caution, and finally eliminate no-show, unreasonably disruptive or overly passive board members and recruit new ones that will take their responsibilities more seriously.

Good boards invite civil discussions on issues.

Boards should not be rubber-stamps for the founder, board chair or president. No member should feel that they can't offer a suggestion or request clarification of a point. On the other hand, a good board chair does not allow these discussions to degenerate into shouting matches. Meetings should be run under Robert's Rules of Order, and after a reasonable discussion period any new information or dissenting opinions should be either voted upon, tabled and considered in the next meeting, or assigned to a committee for further investigation.

Growing your board is a learning experience, but the end result will be well worth the effort.

Grant Planning- What is it and why should you do it?

Grant planning doesn't start with finding a grant. I get dozens of inquiries like this every year.

" We provide decorated  Christmas trees to low-income families. We need a grant to assist us in purchasing 100 trees. Please help us find grant money for this worthy cause" Rcvd. Nov. 1

Requests like this don't take into account the lead time needed to find a grantor, and certainly doesn't allow any time for the grantor to respond. Grant planning requires you to be proactive, not reactive.

Grant planning requires foresight

Grant planning begins at least one year from the time you need the money and it starts with refining your mission into a program or programs with a budget, and a specific, measurable goal. Here are some of the questions I asked this particular nonprofit.

How many trees do you need?  What is your budget?  Are there trees available at a price that will allow you to furnish 100 trees? Have you worked with vendors (tree farms, direct sellers, etc) to get a discount? Do you have a contract to provide the trees at a stated price? What size trees do you need? What about transportation, both to you and to the recipients? What species of tree do you want? Do you have alternatives? How do you qualify people to receive a tree? Can you store the trees, or do you need them very close to the distribution date? Who has supported this cause in the past?

Setting up a prospect calendar

Typically, foundations plan their giving cycles at annual, semi-annual or quarterly intervals. The application closing date for the grants might be as much as a year ahead of when the grant is awarded. That's why this is called grant planning, not grant getting.

After you have mapped out the when, where, how much and why for your appeal, it still has to fit into the grant calendar for the foundation. That means finding the prospective grantors well ahead of the opening date of the grant application or RFP date. Arrange your prospective targets in a format that allows you to sort by RFP opening date, closing date, amount available, and enter those into a working calendar or spreadsheet.

Qualify targets

If your targets are local, establish some sort of relationship with them ahead of time. Follow them on Facebook, or go to events they frequent. Find out who is on their board, and look for common associations with your board. Check to see if they have a prequalifying phase (an LOI or online qualifying protocol). Look at their previous giving patterns and assign a priority to the ones that are most likely to respond well. There is no sense in "shotgunning" your requests to any and all foundations that have only a very remote connection to your cause. That's expensive both in terms of time and money, and seldom results in an out-of-the-blue award.

If you need help designing a grant plan, drop me a line at granthelp@ida.net, or visit my website, http://www.cloudlancerwriting.com.